MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want

from the 'scuse-me? dept

Sometimes I wonder if the execs who run the major copyright-related trade groups ever talk to actual people outside of their little bubbles. Because they say things that are so out of touch with reality that it's stunning. We already discussed the panel where the RIAA's Cary Sherman said that various ISPs will start acting as copyright cops by July, but some of the other statements on that panel are worth discussing as well. It was basically a panel of all the big copyright industry trade group associations -- the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA (software) and the AAP (book publishers).

"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."

Actually, no, tons of others create content that people want to have, and it's the real reason you're struggling so much today. You're not used to competing with those outside your little club.

The folks on the panel (with the exception of the BSA, who famously flip flopped its views on SOPA) brought out the usual crap about how SOPA was defeated via "disinformation":

"Right doesn't always prevail," Attaway said of SOPA and PIPA. "This time, it didn't, because our opponents were able to energize a grassroots response. In my view, and I think all of us would agree, [the protest against SOPA and PIPA was spread] primarily through disinformation and spinning their interest in a way that captured the attention of a number of consumers."

This is such a load of hogwash. The MPAA has been a master at disinformation campaigns throughout its history. It's why it's been able to continually ratchet up copyright law in its favor for decades. This is the same industry who declared that the VCR would kill it... and now whines that the home video market that wouldn't even exist if it had gotten its way is being decimated by the internet. Did some folks on the anti-SOPA side get some of the facts wrong? Yeah, but it wasn't a disinformation campaign. That's what the MPAA ran. And, the only reason there was some misinformation in the campaign against SOPA was because the MPAA went so far in its initial version of the bill (and make no mistake, the bill came from the MPAA), that people reacted to that. It's true that eventually some of the worst parts were removed and people who didn't realize that still referred to the original text. But it's not like they made things up wholesale. The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.

The article by Laura Hazard Owen at PaidContent notes that these association bosses are now finally talking of "engagement" with those who disagreed with them on SOPA, but they still are only thinking about industries -- not internet users. They have no interest in actually talking to the riff-raff they look down upon, but still expect to give them money. Maybe that -- more than anything else -- is their problem.

Also, don't think they're done pushing for bad legislation. The RIAA's Cary Sherman noted that the plan was to push for legislation that was less likely to rally up the grassroots again:

The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA. "The digital tsunami we encountered with SOPA and PIPA—we're not going to get the same kind of engagement when we talk about statutory damages or open works," he said. "We'll have the opportunity for a more rational discussion."

You see, in Sherman's mind, any time anyone disagrees with the RIAA's stated position, that's no longer a "rational" discussion. But because "statutory damages" sound so boring, he's hopeful that they can pass even worse laws to make the already insane damages rates even more insane.

The whole thing shows, yet again, that these guys still have no idea what happened, and have no idea how to engage with the internet. It's sad to watch them flail around like this. If they'd only taken the time to actually use the internet and learn about it, perhaps they wouldn't always sound so clueless. But, of course, why would they use the internet? It's not like it even can produce any of the content they want...

Reader Comments

Still using misinformation

The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.

Chris Dodd used this as recently as the Attorney General meeting and I'm still amazed that he's gotten away with it. No one has had a public debate with him and this 2.2 million jobs number. It's beyond ridiculous. Also, these "industries" don't create, nor do they represent creator interests. That's the problem here. I look at these people and *all* of them represent gatekeepers who have no interest in what people want. They don't know how to enable access, merely limit progress. We need to remove the bottle out of their mouths and let them cry it out. No more government teat. If they want to have a "rational discussion" it's time for them to recognize that no one is interested in their spoiled temper tantrums.

And I for one know that I'm voting out the politicians that enable them.

Re: Still using misinformation

Ane me too.I have been doing music since 1972 and am an original punk rocker from the 70-'s.I still play in a few bands and I never ever sold out nor thought of signing with a Corporate Label or RIAA,MPAA.
Millions of us around the World want nothing to do with your greedy Industry.I made the definative documentary film on Jewish Life Before, during, and immediately after WW2.I did this without any signing to MPAA for this film.I share it with the World freely.
I do not need you RIAA or MPAA.We can exist without you.We will exist without you.And I Boycott anything that you do.You are Censored from my Wallet forever.I will buy your Content used somewhere or not at all.
For those interested in my Art or my documentary:http://www.bigmeathammer.com

Re: Re: Still using misinformation

Gorehound, mate, put in a space after every comma and full stop which ends a sentence. And put an extra linefeed between paragraphs, so there is a blank line. Yes, it wastes space, but it improves readability. Take a look, that is what the rest of us are doing.

Your website is just fabulous, but it needs a bit of editing, for the same reasons.

Re: Still using misinformation

According to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the entire Arts Entrtainment and Recreation Industry employes around 2 million jobs. But that includes parks, gambling, museums and historical sites. Only about 50k are for independent artists and another 117k for performing arts companies. Since the MPAA and RIAA are going heavily after "public performances", aren't they hurting more people than they are helping?

Re: I wonder...

Okay, isn't "grassroots" by definition the spreading of a popular idea BY THE PEOPLE? Even if we decided to give them (which I'm not, but for the sake of argument, let's say we did) that Google "energized" (read: "started") the "grassroots" movement, by admitting that it was indeed a "grassroots" movement, what happened WAS the will of the people that spread because it was the will of the people and not all Google as they previously claimed?

Re: Re: I wonder...

No, to the entertainment industry "grassroots" is corporate sponsored entities that enlist the aid of "commoners" through deception or payment. The idea that the general public should be allowed to determine things by free will is totally incomprehensible to them.

Also, don't think they're done pushing for bad legislation. The RIAA's Cary Sherman noted that the plan was to push for legislation that was less likely to rally up the grassroots again:"

Here it comes. A little in this bill, a little in that bill, a few more bills for our congress critters pockets.

"I remember thinking it would take a man six hundred years to tunnel through the wall with it. Old Andy did it in less than twenty. Oh, Andy loved geology. I imagine it appealed to his meticulous nature. An ice age here, million years of mountain building there. Geology is the study of pressure and time. That's all it takes really, pressure, and time"

i disagree. the 'industries know exactly what happened over SOPA/PIPA, and what is happening over ACTA and TPP. trouble is, they dont want to admit to what happened or why. they also know how to engage with the internet, but again thy dont want to. i have a rockin' horse at home that has more sense, common sense and foresight than these idiots will ever have. they only get what they want because they can use their ill-gotten gains to bribe politicians to change laws.

Five comments in?

Re: Five comments in?

Many of the cheerleading comments for this blog are shills-- and the worst don't even realize that they're paid astroturfers. This blog loves to take money from Google and pretend that it has nothing to do with their kneejerk reaction to support anything Google does including trash the privacy of the users.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?

Re: Re: Five comments in?

Yeah, and many of the comments supporting the MPAA are god fearing bald eagles who have learned to type on a keyboard carefully with their talons in order to support America, Freedom, Apple pie, Broad overreaching copyright laws, and the Statue of Liberty.

Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?

Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?

Oh, you didn't get the memo this week?

I'm sorry I'm the one that has to break it to you, silvercatcat, But I'm afraid Big Search is going to have to let you go. We've had a bad quarter, less people are searching for things lately. I heard Hollywood's UltraViolet is responsible. People just can't get enough of it. Oh, and QR codes in malls too, they've had MASSIVE success. They're going to be the death of our industry I tell ya!

Re: Re: Five comments in?

Why do you guys have such a hard time believing that normal, hard working, paying people also come here?

I work in the aerospace manufacturing industry. We make parts for those airplanes you jet around the country in.

We have nothing to do with watching movies (productivity loss), or listening to music (safety hazard).

We make parts that go into airplanes.

I read those laws.

Our industries don't even come close to touching each other, and yet, your laws were going to make my job as an IT Administrator way harder, with zero compensation for it.

Your laws were going to make it harder for communication between our customers and vendors.

We already have problems just from trying to keep information secure, so the hackers and terrorists can't get in and figure out how to build these planes...or how they are made to figure out how to attack best.

Not to mention the traceability required when performing that kind of manufacturing....to make sure the damn things don't fall out of the sky....

And yet, you wanted to pass laws that would affect the very thing that would allow us to be able to communicate this information in a timely manner....ALL because YOU don't want to evolve, and came in late to the game.

I am not Google.

I am an American Citizen, working in an American factory, providing American manufactured parts (metal to finished part) to companies across the world.

Re: Re: Five comments in?

Many of the cheerleading comments for this blog are shills-- and the worst don't even realize that they're paid astroturfers. This blog loves to take money from Google and pretend that it has nothing to do with their kneejerk reaction to support anything Google does including trash the privacy of the users.

Re: Re: Five comments in?

the worst don't even realize that they're paid astroturfers

Bob, I realize you are paid not to think, but explain to me exactly how someone doesn't realize that they're paid astroturfer? You're either a paid astroturfer or you're not, and you will likely know you are when you receive a paycheck.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?

I don't understand - exactly what's the problem with complaining about a lousy service? If the general public is going to fund piracy enforcement the public is going to expect that it works and, y'know, actually get artists paid.

So far all piracy enforcement has done is demand settlement letters from a thoroughly ridiculous selection of individuals (and devices, don't forget that them laser printers are stealing our music industry). Somehow, the RIAA saw it fitting to give Mitch Bainwol more money. If piracy enforcement actually did its job with efficiency and accuracy it would be far less irksome.

Re: Only We Can Make Content That People Want

It's not hogwash

I won't claim that the MPAA doesn't act in its own interest and I won't claim that they don't lobby to help the movie industry. But you're being willfully foolish if you think that the anti-SOPA campaign was truly grassroots. I'm sure that 99% still think that it was about censorship-- a truly nasty spin given that, if anything, it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work.

There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity.

This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood. It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves.

Re: It's not hogwash

Re: It's not hogwash

Not THE bob!!?

Can I have you're autograph? You're my second favorite troll--but only 'cause nobody beats *angry dude*

I find your comments insightful and enlightening. Would you happen to have some helpful links where I could educate myself about "Big Search, Big Piracy, and Big Hardware' and learn more about their billionaire political agendas?

Re: It's not hogwash

Interesting. So if they are all so rich, why do you care which one wins?

The billionaires have built, at no cost to the millionaires, lots of hardware and software that can be used to get the content out there for the consumer when he wants it, where he wants it and the way he wants it. But for some reason, the millionaires refuse the free services. Maybe there is a reason they are only millionaires and Silicon Valley types are billionaires?

I personally hope the billionaires win, because a win for them is a win for me. A win for the millionaires is a loss for me.

Re: It's not hogwash

"it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work."

Sorry boB, the MPAA cornered the market on:
"preventing them(artists) from profiting on their hard work"

Big time, im on my way im making it... oh sorry got distracted there for a minute.

"This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood."
You see boB, this is the problem with your ilk. It was not about big anything. It was normal people being directed to a piece of legislation that goes against the principals of what this country was founded on, and the principles that the internet was based on.

You and your ilk cant get that because you have no principles.

When my mom calls me and says hey my neighbor just told me about this sopa thing and I read about it... I am 42. You just don't get what really happened there.

"Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves." - Cukoo cukoo.

Re: It's not hogwash

This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the billionaires in Hollywood. It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists isn't going to get raped every day by mike masnick and his army of satans who were legislated into existence the minute that the god-fearing army of SOPA and PIPA fell to the communist fuckstains that are everyone that I disagree with

Nice job Mike Hitler, you went back in time and aborted personal creativity. Now we'll never leave this planet and be forced to burn up when the sun explodes.

Re: Re: It's not hogwash

Re: Re: It's not hogwash

Mike is not content with just being Satan, he gets an entire army of Satans.

That's how evil he is.

His mere presence causes artists to starve, kittens to implode and MAFIAA bosses to shit bricks.

And on top of that he is Hitler.

In face of this Satanic apocalypse, it becomes apparent to one and all that in this key moment in time, at the cusp of human existence, we need more draconian copyright laws so that we can sue lots of people out of all their money.

It won't stop the world from burning before Masnick's greedy gaze, but the figures for this quarter will be nice. And that, people, is a worthy cause. That, my brothers and sisters, is what America is all about.

Re: It's not hogwash

"Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware"...

Can you put some names to those? Unlike Mainstream Media, which seems to comprise less than 20 companies world wide, and "Hollywood", which comprises maybe 10 major studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Today.27s_Big_Six), and Big Pharma, which is maybe 12 companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies), what comprises "Big Search"? Also, "Big Hardware", what companies comprise that?

But the most ridiculous of all, "Big Piracy"? Given that the MPAA and RIAA have sued single people for copyright infringement, why don't we know the names of "Big Piracy"? Napster no longer exists, similar Kazaa, Limewire, and others. Who's left?

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash

Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash

Google also provided his wife with a link to a voice over internet protocol service known as Skype which she used to call him and say 'I'm calling over Skype to tell you I've run off to the Bahamas with Google,' a clear violation of Skype's trademark.

Re: It's not hogwash

Re: It's not hogwash

Don't you mean the multi-billionaires of Hollywood and the millionaires of Silicon Valley?

Big Search? Big Piracy? Big Hardware?

... Well, I'll give you the last one if you mean Apple and Microsoft.

And, I'm PRETTY sure that you're right about this last bit...

"It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Media and the Content Gatekeepers of the MPAA and RIAA want to keep all of the revenues for themselves."

Re: It's not hogwash

First...BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. OK, lets break it down:

"I'm sure that 99% still think that it was about censorship-- a truly nasty spin given that, if anything, it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work."

You're right, Big Media does engage in quite a bit of quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting.
(I mean you do realize that's what you said there, right?)

"There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity."

Just like the "charity" the MAFIAA is doing with the lies they're spreading and the unconstitutional laws they're trying to get passed? Also, bonus points for the "Big"'s. Get back to me when there's associations 1/10 of the size and power of the bullshit you work for and then you can start to use the term, "Big."

"This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood."

Once again, BAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't know if I've seen something as stupid as you trying to make a media conglomerate large enough TO FUCKING GET SOMEONE EXTRADITED out to be the little guy.

"It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work."

You're absolutely right, artists should be profiting off of their work, which means eliminating redundant leaches in the middle who are living off of their hard work and paying them a tiny percentage of what they bring in.

Re: It's not hogwash

Provide verifiable facts and you have my attention. Otherwise, I have no idea if you are deluded, confused, repeating AA crap or whatever.

Sad part is, I would actually like to see anything verifiable out of an AA that can be double checked. I am wondering if anyone in the AA world will stand up and give the rest of the world a reason to NOT jeer at them.

Re: It's not hogwash

It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves.

Then explain why, according to the studio, Titanic STILL hasn't turned a profit!
The studios (or Big A$$holes) want the profits for themselves, not to share them with the actual creators!

Re: Re: It's not hogwash

With a clause like that I would support it only if the bill was treated the same way TPP and ACTA are being treated, except instead of the public having no idea what's in it it's instead the people paying for the bills who had no idea what exactly was in it.

Given a situation like that, I'd give it a week, top before every last one of them was copyright ownership free.

Re: It's not hogwash

I saw a great, independent movie a while back

I saw an article about this movie (Lake Effects) so I decided to watch it and it was good. Apparently the writer, who is also a co-star in the movie, got the community to come together and finance/sponsor the movie. It was a well done movie, as good as anything you will see in the theater.

I've recently decided I just hate the MPAA. I've decided I'm never going to knowingly pay to see a film again. I'm just going to buy things from industries that don't shit on me. When I buy a Blu-ray and am forced to sit through adverts and am then presented with a legal threat that is just plain rude, why would I pay to enjoy that sort of treatment?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is how it can be done!

Recently I bought a Britisch TV-series on DVD (Yes, that was me). Instead of obnoxious 30 second warnings about stealing stuff there was a 5 second message:
"By buying this DVD you support the British Film Industry and it's actors. THANK YOU!"

I really sat back for a couple of seconds and thought this was awesome. I was treated like a customer!

I've never seen it before on anything else but I urge other companies to adopt the same strategy.

A brief flash of hope...

I miss-read that title as saying:
"MPAA Exec: We Can Only Make Content That People Want"
at first and thought for a few seconds that it was an oddly prescient analysis and admission of the actual control consumers have over media and art. If people don't want it, companies can't make money from it (and shouldn't be producing it).

Of course that fantasy vanished as I read a little more of the article. Not only do they not understand it's the consumers who dictate the market, they think that they're the sole supplier. As is evidenced by the stream of crappy content and delivery that dominates over more worthy, but less "profitable" ventures.

What is getting pirated? What is getting downloaded? What is getting bought? What is the talk of everyone? It isn't the latest waste of time from Amanda Palmer or Nina Paley is it? Sure, some people want it, but then again, some people like to get spanked and anally violated by transvestites, but that still isn't considered a mainstream concept, is it?

The MPAA is right - they make the content that almost everyone seems to want.

Re: Re:

A new low? Last year he commented how lonely Mike's Wife and Kids were, and how he was watching them. He's fucking INSANE. That's why he comments on here, in real life nobody except his psychiatrist talks to him.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

I'm sure Ani Difranco, Thom Yorke, and Trent Reznor enjoy having their music compared to such acts. Or rather, they dont' care because they make a decent living without having major labels take a massive cut.

I don't think I want my kid sitting in a theater listening to people cuss. It's bad enough what they get "outside", there is no reason to subject them to it in a closed room - and certainly not in a movie they could go and see without parental supervision.

So your argument doesn't really hold water. Plenty of movies have gotten R ratings and then bitched about it, and mostly because they know that dunderheads like you will spray their names all over social media complaining about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Uh huh...

Wanna bet that the MPAA doesn't control the ratings?

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone got to see both sides of the process when their independently made film Orgazmo was given an NC-17 for lewd jokes and brief nudity in the form of breasts and asses (which doomed it to obscurity until Parker and Stone became household names), while South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut received an R for some pretty explicit cartoon sex and violence. The film even included a real picture of an erect penis disguised as a sex toy.

""They [the MPAA] have no set rules. Things change from movie to movie," says Stone. "It makes no sense. . . . In going through their notes we saw that they had no standards so we decided these people are stupid and we'd just try to get it past them. If there was something they said couldn't stay in the movie, we'd make it 10 times worse and five times as long. And they'd come back and say, 'OK, that's better.' " " - Trey Parker and Matt Stone

Parker and Stone have crossed swords with the ratings organization before, losing their battle on the independently made film "Orgazmo," which received an NC-17 rating, they say, despite the fact that they consider it to be mild by comparison to "South Park." "The reason we got the NC-17 on 'Orgazmo' was that it was released by October Films, which had no clout, and we didn't have the money to reedit the film and continue to resubmit it," says Parker.

"It's all politics, relationships at the top," says Stone. "It's who you know. If you're Steven Spielberg and you want to push those limits, like in 'Saving Private Ryan,' you can because it's done in the name of high art and how much money he makes [for the industry]."

So, what you said... About my argument not holding water?

Yeah, I think it does, maybe you should offer real proof before embarrassing yourself like you just did.

Re:

What does the MPAA create exactly? Last I checked they create nothing. I guess you could argue that the member studios create that stuff, but are they only doing that because of the MPAA? No. They are doing it because there is money to be made from it.

Also, your comments equating indie film and music to "get spanked and anally violated by transvestites" is rather interesting. I guess it really shows what you think of on a regular basis.

Re:

No, the MPAA caters to the slack-jawed goobers who line up outside their shitty, overpriced, theaters to watch boring and unoriginal shit that is mostly copies of other boring, unoriginal shit, or sequels to boring, unoriginal shit. They also profit handily from the same obese, super-sizing diabetes candidates and their equally fat kids, selling them boring, unoriginal shit that is designed to kill them off, and one day they will run out of warm bodies to profit from because they helped kill them off. So if large numbers of brain-dead nitwits support them, that doesn't mean they make anything of cultural or artistic value, and as such, their products are essentially worthless, at least to anyone with a brain that functions above the reptilian level. "Almost everyone" is a meaningless and made-up term used to justify their ridiculous position.

Even the point that some of the anti-SOPA people got the details wrong and continued to harp on the old version of the bill's language isn't a real detraction of the anti-SOPA cause. You can't trust anyone who brings in legislation that is that harsh to begin with, regardless of what changes they make. The only way you could possibly not be opposed to legislation brought by these people is if they suddenly had some kind of Ebenezer Scrooge experience the night before and come in and change the legislation to restore extremely limited copyright durations and the public domain and better clarify fair use as a pre-trial defense.

Re: Re:

I think you're agreeing with me and just don't know it. I'm saying that no version of it is acceptable because the only ways in which it could be acceptable is if it was entirely rewritten from scratch to rebalance copyright law back in favor the of the public, which would never happen. So essentially, no version would ever be acceptable.

MPAA playing it wrong

When will the MPAA learn that they'll never garner any sympathy as the victim in this matter? Once they accept they're the ones that f'ed up, they can make strides into fixing the bridges with consumers. Till then, they can go climb a tree.

"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."

Oh? So you think people want shit?

Well, hate to break it to ya, but with Youtube Poops around even the shit department's too high for ya.

In a nutshell

A huge THANK YOU to the AC who summed up the best way to look at the content industry and any effort to prop up their model.

"You, sir, are just the entertainment."

Congress portrays the needs for laws like SOPA/PIPA as necessary for a number of reasons, but seriously, we are talking about entertainment. Personally I really hadn't looked at any of these issues from that angle, but when you put it in perspective, we are simply talking about entertainment.

In other words, if movies and music require insane levels of investment to produce, then get on Kickstarter and raise funds or quit bitching.

"The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA."
How can they be rational with nit wits like the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA and the AAP involved?

I got to the point where you said that the anti-SOPA/anti-PIPA movement wasn't using misleading propaganda. Saying SOPA would "break the internet" was a blatant lie. I had people sending me emails trying to get me to help them "save the internet". It was beyond misinformation, it was strategically planned lies. Stopping people from posting links to stolen music/movies isn't censorship it's enforcement.

Re:

I think creating a massive government run "man in the middle" attack on web users is very much "breaking the internet".

I guess you have no problems letting the government and entertainment companies spy on your internet usage, but a lot of people like their privacy. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because they just like keeping their private life private.

Re:

This bill would have severely subverted Constitutional provisions designed to protect the average citizen from abuse from third parties, and government institutions.

Ya know that little thing called due process and innocent until proven guilty? Heard of them?

Yeah, little shit like that.

"Stopping people from posting links to stolen music/movies isn't censorship it's enforcement." - Unless the actions of a few bad eggs infringe on the rights of everyone else. e.g just what happened with dajaz1 & Megaupload. Plenty of legitimate users.

PPL like you appear to be of the mindset of "only the police should have guns" crowd.

""break the internet" was a blatant lie" In your little mentally twisted world maybe.

Re:

Accusing people of linking to stolen music/movies (please define for me how these movies are stolen), with very weak evidence, then shutting down their websites by forcing payment processors to cease business with them = censorship.

Well, first, yes it is. Stopping any speech is censorship. The thing is that some censorship is acceptable to society at large. That you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also censorship, but it's OK censorship.

That said, stopping people from actually distributing pirated material wasn't what people were complaining about when they were talking about censorship. They were talking about the suppression of legal speech, which the original incarnation of SOPA certainly allowed.

Finally, preventing people from linking to infringing material is, I would argue, unacceptable censorship. Posting a link is not the same as posting the infringing material itself. It is no different than publishing an address.

In fact, I'm amazed that people who are extremely concerned with eliminating piracy don't encourage the posting of these links. It makes infringers easier to find, doesn't it? Publishing the addresses of drug dealers is legal, and I would expect that cops would really love it if people did this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

These guys must really like making enemies...

They are going to continue to push and push for unpopular special interest pet legislation via their public tirades, transparent spin-doctoring and usual channels of corruption until enough people get motivated to enact changes to the system to not only stop them but take away other big companies with special interests (such as the telcos for instance) that have been using the same channels of corruption for their own industry. Then they REALLY will have a situation on their hands.

Another Angle

Perhaps the MPAA is right in a sense. Most people want crap. We know that because crappy movies tend to make the biggest bucks; because the comment cards at pre-screenings show people don't get anything with remotely complex narratives ("Er, Memento is good, but can you re-edit it in proper chronology?"); because reality TV flourishes; because Matchbox 20 was allowed to exist. And the MPAA is the crapmeister for the lowest common denominator.

But ... we need the LCD, because if they were to disappear, we might become the LCD. And it's so much more rewarding to be smarter then everyone else, like the MPAA. Dang, I suppose I should reach out to them, they being on the same level of being smarter than those others. Sold, everything on this site is a lie.

The truth is until the internet came along, their industries where the only content accessible to most people, because they had a lock on distribution. If you wanted to get a movie into the theatre so people can see it - you pretty much had to go to an MPAA member to make that happen.

Good movies and bad movies were made this way, but they always made sure it was their movies that were on the screens.

Sometimes a foreign film or two would slip in there, but they would rarely take up space at the multiplex. Independently made movies started to become popular in the 1990s, but they put a stop to that by cornering the indie distribution market. Now there is no indie business outside of film festivals.

So it's not that they make the movies people want to see, but control the films that are available to see.

They were busted for this in the 1950s, and maybe they should be busted up again. The deals they're making for digital projection systems is giving them even more control over what gets shown at your local theatre.

you're sounding a little condescending, Mike

I agree that Big Media still doesn't understand the resistance it encountered with SOPA/PIPA. But I don't think that ultimately makes any difference. These idiots will never stop trying to pass progressively worse IP laws.

Maybe the Internet hive mind has already lost interest in this game. Maybe Big Media will learn the lesson that they have to be even sneakier and/or more gradual in their approach. But one way or another, bad IP laws have a very high probability of getting on the books.

"We create content that people want to have."
You mean like that Marmaduke movie literally nobody asked for? "War is peace, ignorance is strength, movies based on universally hated comics are what the people want" indeed.

Speaking of misnformation

"The intellectual base of the Copyleft is pretty flimsy, and we need to do a better job of pointing that out to the public." is Attaway regarding the holy grail of copyright education.

Except that he's wrong, of course. The Free Software Foundation says this is free software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and notice, Mr Attaway that it says nothing at all about what you consider piracy not does it encourage it. It encourages sharing and creativity free from what it calls proprietary restraints which seems to be what the RIAA and MPAA are all about.

If Mr Attaway would bother to read the GPL he might discover that copyright isn't attacked in it, the code is not placed in the public domain though there are restrictions in converting it to a proprietary product. I fact copyright is expressly contained in the GPL.

Copyleft is a philosophy expressed in the GPL and by FSF which has little or nothing to do with "piracy" however the "content" industry wants to define that (which appears to be surprisingly elastic). And it's not the same as the Creative Commons licenses.

If you're going to "educate" people, Mr Attaway of the MPAA I suggest you start with educating yourself, TAM and Bob first.

Then I suggest you find you how much software covered by the GPL has been used to generate to pretty special effects in your films, the 3D effects and so much else. Not to mention other areas of your member companies where FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is used. But hey, you think you have another great word to toss around and redefine at your pleasure. Guess what? You don't.

""Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."

When it comes to providing us with entertainment through comic relief, no one does a better job than them. But not because we are laughing with them but because we are laughing at them.